Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: An Analysis of a Prospective, Multicenter Product Surveillance Registry

Lisa M Stearns, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Christophe Perruchoud, Robert Spencer, Krisstin Hammond, Katherine Stromberg, Todd Weaver, Lisa M Stearns, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Christophe Perruchoud, Robert Spencer, Krisstin Hammond, Katherine Stromberg, Todd Weaver

Abstract

Background: The safety and efficacy of intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) for the treatment of cancer-related pain have been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Despite positive evidence for this therapy, IDDS remains underutilized to treat cancer pain. Real-world registry data augment existing safety and effectiveness data and are presented here to broaden awareness of this therapeutic option, needed for adequate cancer-related pain treatment, and as a viable tool addressing concerns with systemic opioid use.

Methods: This prospective, long-term, multicenter (United States, Western Europe, and Latin America) registry started in 2003 to monitor the performance of SynchroMed Infusion Systems. Patient-reported outcomes were added in 2013. Before data acquisition, all sites obtained Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board approval and written patient consent. The study was registered (NCT01524276 at clinicaltrials.gov) before patients were enrolled. Patients who provided informed consent were enrolled in the registry at initial IDDS implant or replacement.

Results: Through July 2017, 1403 patients with cancer pain were enrolled and implanted. The average (minimum/maximum) age of patients was 59 years (13/93 years), with 56.6% female. The most frequent cancer types were lung, breast, colon/rectal, pancreatic, and prostate. The majority of patients whose registry follow-up ended (87%; 1141/1311) were followed through death, with 4.3% (n = 57) exiting due to device explant or therapy discontinuation; the remaining 113 (8.6%) discontinued for reasons such as transfer of care, lost to follow-up, and site closure. Pain scores within the cohort of patients providing baseline and follow-up data improved significantly at 6 (P = .0007; n = 103) and 12 (P = .0026; n = 55) months compared to baseline, with EuroQol with 5 dimensions (EuroQol-5D) scores showing significant improvement at 6 months (P = .0016; n = 41). Infection requiring surgical intervention (IDDS explant, replacement, pocket revision, irrigation and debridement, etc) was reported in 3.2% of patients.

Conclusions: Adequate and improved pain control in patients with cancer, even in advanced stages, with concurrent quality of life maintenance is attainable. Results from this large-scale, multicenter, single-group cohort supplement existing RCT data that support IDDS as a safe and effective therapeutic option with a positive benefit-risk ratio in the treatment of cancer pain.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Patient survival from all-cause death through (A) 12 mo and (B) 126 mo. Shaded area represents the 95% confidence interval at that time point. Number of patients at risk are shown at select months of follow-up. Data are shown when there are ≥20 patients in each 3-mo interval.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Patient-reported outcomes: pain. Average pain scores and 95% confidence intervals for patients with paired baseline and 6- or 12-mo assessment data. Pain scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Patient-reported outcomes: quality of life. A, Average EQ-5D Index scores and 95% confidence intervals for patients with paired baseline and 6- or 12-mo assessment data. EQ-5D Index scores range from −0.285 (worst health state) to 1 (best health state). B, Average EQ-5D Health-VAS and 95% confidence intervals for patients with paired baseline and 6- or 12-mo assessment data. EQ-5D Health-VAS scores range from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health). EQ-5D indicates EuroQol with 5 dimensions; EQ-5D Health-VAS, EuroQol Health Visual Analog Scale.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief with a Guide to Opioid Availability. 1996. 2nd ed Geneva: World Health Organization; Available at: . Accessed April 4, 2018.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Available at: . Accessed March 7, 2018.
    1. Reis-Pina P, Lawlor PG, Barbosa A. Adequacy of cancer-related pain management and predictors of undertreatment at referral to a pain clinic. J Pain Res. 2017;10:2097–2107.
    1. Singh H, Banipal RPS, Singh B. Assessment of adequacy of pain management and analgesic use in patients with advanced cancer using the brief pain inventory and pain management index calculation. J Glob Oncol. 2017;3:235–241.
    1. Pergolizzi JV, Gharibo C, Ho KY. Treatment considerations for cancer pain: a global perspective. Pain Pract. 2015;15:778–792.
    1. Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:220–241.
    1. Ferris FD, Bruera E, Cherny N, et al. Palliative cancer care a decade later: accomplishments, the need, next steps – from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3052–3058.
    1. Paice JA, Portenoy R, Lacchetti C, et al. Management of chronic pain in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3325–3345.
    1. Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain–United States, 2016. Jama. 2016;315:1624–1645.
    1. Smith TJ, Staats PS, Deer T, et al. ; Implantable Drug Delivery Systems Study Group. Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4040–4049.
    1. Smith TJ, Coyne PJ, Staats PS, et al. An implantable drug delivery system (IDDS) for refractory cancer pain provides sustained pain control, less drug-related toxicity, and possibly better survival compared with comprehensive medical management (CMM). Ann Oncol. 2005;16:825–833.
    1. Staats PS, Yearwood T, Charapata SG, et al. Intrathecal ziconotide in the treatment of refractory pain in patients with cancer or AIDS: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:63–70.
    1. Brogan SE, Winter NB, Okifuji A. Prospective observational study of patient-controlled intrathecal analgesia: impact on cancer-associated symptoms, breakthrough pain control, and patient satisfaction. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015;40:369–375.
    1. Sayed D, Monroe F, Orr WN, et al. Retrospective analysis of intrathecal drug delivery: outcomes, efficacy, and risk for cancer-related pain at a high volume academic medical center. Neuromodulation. 2018;21:660–663.
    1. Caraway D, Walker V, Becker L, Hinnenthal J. Successful discontinuation of systemic opioids after implantation of an intrathecal drug delivery system. Neuromodulation. 2015;18:508–515.
    1. Stearns LJ, Narang S, Albright RE, Jr, et al. Assessment of health care utilization and cost of targeted drug delivery and conventional medical management vs conventional medical management alone for patients with cancer-related pain. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e191549.
    1. Konrad PE, Huffman JM, Stearns LM, et al. Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems (IDDS): the Implantable Systems Performance Registry (ISPR). Neuromodulation. 2016;19:848–856.
    1. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27:7–22.
    1. Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika. 1988;75:800–802.
    1. Bennett M, Paice JA, Wallace M. Pain and opioids in cancer care: benefits, risks, and alternatives. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2017;37:705–713.
    1. Ruppen W, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Infection rates associated with epidural indwelling catheters for seven days or longer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Palliat Care. 2007;6:3.
    1. de Jong PC, Kansen PJ. A comparison of epidural catheters with or without subcutaneous injection ports for treatment of cancer pain. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:94–100.
    1. Bajpai J, Puri A, Shah K, et al. Chemotherapy compliance in patients with osteosarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:41–44.
    1. Aboumrad M, Shiner B, Riblet N, Mills PD, Watts BV. Factors contributing to cancer-related suicide: a study of root-cause analysis reports. Psycho-oncology. 2018;27:2237–2244.
    1. McCanney J, Winckworth-Prejsnar K, Schatz AA, et al. Addressing survivorship in cancer care. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16:801–806.
    1. Deer TR, Prager J, Levy R, et al. Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference–2012: recommendations for the management of pain by intrathecal (intraspinal) drug delivery: report of an interdisciplinary expert panel. Neuromodulation. 2012;15:436–464.
    1. Deer TR, Levy R, Prager J, et al. Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference–2012: recommendations to reduce morbidity and mortality in intrathecal drug delivery in the treatment of chronic pain. Neuromodulation. 2012;15:467–482.
    1. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, et al. The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): recommendations on intrathecal drug infusion systems best practices and guidelines. Neuromodulation. 2017;20:96–132.
    1. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, et al. The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): recommendations for intrathecal drug delivery: guidance for improving safety and mitigating risks. Neuromodulation. 2017;20:155–176.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться